I would certainly agree that the common identification of those who
objected to the liberal arts as 'antidialecticians' must be
reconsidered. Irven Resnick, I.S. Robinson and G.R. Evans have all
demonstrated tha these scholars' in fact had considerable skills in
the liberal arts. But where do we go from here? The continued use
of the arts by Otloh, Damian, Gerard of Csanad and others certainly
demands attention, and it is important to establish to nature of the
use made by these scholars of the arts. However, what do we then
make of their objections? At one level these seem to be purely
conventional, yet the flurry of objections specifically in the
eleventh century is what seems to call for particular examination.
What do these scholars stand to gain by branding others as
'dialecticians'? Whyshould the study of the arts become so
contentious at this time? Resnick and Robinson suggest the
beginnings of framework, arguing that heightened anxieties
surrounding the arts might be explicable in terms of the charged
political atmosphere of the period. By creating the arts as 'other',
scholars such as Damian and Manegold in particularwere able to
further legitimize their own unique readings of scripture, especially
in the service of Gregorian reforms. Otloh, however, seems to have a
different agenda, being not directly concerned with issues of papal
reform. Nevertheless, he writes with the same anxiety as his
contemporaries.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|